Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Insurance money of a substituted heir before the cause arises is not special profit
Supreme Court, June 13, 2024, 2024Seu525 (ruling)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 기여분결정및상속재산분할·기여분결정및상속재산분할
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a decedent entered a life insurance contract naming the substituted heir as beneficiary and paid the premiums before the cause of substitution arose, is the insurance money the substituted heir later received a special profit counted as an advance on the share under Article 1008 of the Civil Act?
Holding
No. Where the decedent entered a life insurance contract naming the substituted heir as beneficiary before the cause of substitution arose and paid the premiums as policyholder, a gift that in substance reduced the decedent's property already existed at the moment of that designation. Because the money the substituted heir later received on the insured's death was therefore not received in the capacity of heir, it is not a special profit under Article 1008 of the Civil Act, and it had to be excluded from the divisible estate when the concrete shares were calculated.
Points at issue, verbatim
피상속인이 피대습인을 피보험자로 하되 대습상속인을 보험수익자로 지정한 생명보험계약을 체결하고 보험계약자로서 보험료를 납부하다가 피대습인이 사망하여 대습상속인이 생명보험금을 수령한 경우, 피상속인의 증여가 있었던 시점(=대습상속인을 보험수익자로 지정한 때) 및 위 보험금을 대습상속인의 특별수익으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Where the decedent entered into a life insurance contract with the person represented as the insured but designating the heir by representation as the insurance beneficiary, and paid the insurance premiums as the policyholder, and the person represented died and the heir by representation received the life insurance proceeds, the point in time at which the decedent made the gift (= the time when the heir by representation was designated as the insurance beneficiary) and whether the said insurance proceeds may be regarded as a special benefit of the heir by representation (negative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Read from the decision
피상속인의 재산처분행위가 구체적 상속분 산정을 위한 분할대상 상속재산에 포함되는 증여에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
The criteria for determining whether an act of disposition of property by the decedent constitutes a gift included in the inherited estate subject to partition for the calculation of the specific share of inheritance
Factors
- 대습상속인이 대습원인의 발생 이전에 피상속인으로부터 증여를 받은 경우
- 대습상속인의 위와 같은 수익이 특별수익에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
- 피상속인의 재산처분행위가 구체적 상속분 산정을 위한 분할대상 상속재산에 포함되는 증여에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
- 피상속인의 증여가 있었던 시점(=대습상속인을 보험수익자로 지정한 때) 및 위 보험금을 대습상속인의 특별수익으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
• Where an heir by representation received a gift from the decedent before the occurrence of the cause for inheritance by representation
• Whether such gain of the heir by representation constitutes a special benefit (negative)
• The criteria for determining whether an act of disposition of property by the decedent constitutes a gift included in the inherited estate subject to partition for the calculation of the specific share of inheritance
• The point in time at which the decedent made the gift (= the time when the heir by representation was designated as the insurance beneficiary) and whether the said insurance proceeds may be regarded as a special benefit of the heir by representation (negative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1995. 3. 10. 선고 94다16571 판결(공1995상, 1576), 대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2012다31802 판결(공2014하, 1304)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 94Da16571 decided March 10, 1995 (Gong 1995 Sang, 1576), Supreme Court Decision 2012Da31802 decided May 29, 2014 (Gong 2014 Ha, 1304)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1995. 3. 10. 선고 94다16571 판결(공1995상, 1576), 대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2012다31802 판결(공2014하, 1304) / [2] 대법원 2021. 8. 19. 선고 2017다230338 판결(공2021하, 1684), 대법원 2022. 8. 11. 선고 2020다247428 판결(공2022하, 1840)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the substituted heir was named beneficiary before the cause of substitution arose but another person paid the premiums, does the insurance money still fall outside special profit under Article 1008?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, once it excludes the insurance money from the divisible estate and recomputes the shares, will show how the rule works in practice. Any amendment to Article 1008 of the Civil Act, or a later Supreme Court decision on whether a benefit received after the cause of substitution arose counts as special profit, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the substituted heir was named beneficiary before the cause of substitution arose but another person paid the premiums, does the insurance money still fall outside special profit under Article 1008?” vs Independent “How should a beneficiary designation changed after the event giving rise to representation affect the classification of insurance proceeds as a special benefit?”
The primary asks about the case where another person paid the premiums, while the independent reading asks how a beneficiary designation changed after the substitution cause affects the classification.
피상속인이 피대습인을 피보험자로 하되 대습상속인을 보험수익자로 지정한 생명보험계약을 체결하고 보험계약자로서 보험료를 납부하다가 피대습인이 사망하여 대습상속인이 생명보험금을 수령한 경우, 피상속인의 증여가 있었던 시점(=대습상속인을 보험수익자로 지정한 때) 및 위 보험금을 대습상속인의 특별수익으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its ruling of 5 January 2024 ((Incheon) 2022Beu10042, 10043), held that the insurance money the respondents received was a special profit under Article 1008 of the Civil Act. It then included that money in the divisible estate and, on that basis, calculated the concrete shares of the respondents.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that Article 1008 treats a gift as an advance on the share to keep fairness among co-heirs, and that a benefit a substituted heir received before the cause of substitution arose was not received in the capacity of heir. Where the decedent named the substituted heir as beneficiary and paid the premiums, a gift reducing the property already existed at the time of the designation, so the later insurance money was not special profit. The court below had misread the law on the special profit of a substituted heir with an effect on the outcome, and the Court reversed the ruling and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court without deciding the remaining grounds.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the substituted heir was designated beneficiary only after the cause of substitution arose, so that the money was received in the capacity of heir.
- A disposition by the decedent that is not, in substance, a gratuitous disposal reducing the property, since the Court decided the question on that criterion.
- A case in which the decedent died before the person whose death causes the substitution, so that the inheritance took place first.
Record verification notes
Fix first the date on which the substituted heir was named beneficiary, and compare it with the date of the event that caused the substitution, since the whole turn of the decision rests on which came first. Then confirm that the decedent was the policyholder and paid the premiums, totalling KRW 7,127,650 here, and that the contract was one paying the insurance money on the insured's death to the substituted heir. The Court decided this matter without ruling on the other grounds of the re-appeal, so those grounds must be read on their own record.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민법 제1008조의 규정 취지 및 대습상속인이 대습원인의 발생 이전에 피상속인으로부터 증여를 받은 경우, 대습상속인의 위와 같은 수익이 특별수익에 해당하는지 여부(소극) [2] 피상속인의 재산처분행위가 구체적 상속분 산정을 위한 분할대상 상속재산에 포함되는 증여에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 피상속인이 피대습인을 피보험자로 하되 대습상속인을 보험수익자로 지정한 생명보험계약을 체결하고 보험계약자로서 보험료를 납부하다가 피대습인이 사망하여 대습상속인이 생명보험금을 수령한 경우, 피상속인의 증여가 있었던 시점(=대습상속인을 보험수익자로 지정한 때) 및 위 보험금을 대습상속인의 특별수익으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purport of Article 1008 of the Civil Act and whether, where an heir by representation received a gift from the decedent before the occurrence of the cause for inheritance by representation, such gain of the heir by representation constitutes a special benefit (negative) [2] The criteria for determining whether an act of disposition of property by the decedent constitutes a gift included in the inherited estate subject to partition for the calculation of the specific share of inheritance / Where the decedent entered into a life insurance contract with the person represented as the insured but designating the heir by representation as the insurance beneficiary, and paid the insurance premiums as the policyholder, and the person represented died and the heir by representation received the life insurance proceeds, the point in time at which the decedent made the gift (= the time when the heir by representation was designated as the insurance beneficiary) and whether the said insurance proceeds may be regarded as a special benefit of the heir by representation (negative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제1008조 [2] 민법 제1008조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger